The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[mfblume]

No one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from according to Peter, since he said baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Peter 3. In fact, I notice quite shockingly that so-called one-steppers, who refuse to realize repentance is a work, NEVER SAY BAPTISM SAVES at all, while Peter plainly said it did! And when I ask from what, none will answer! So the "one-stepper" position is simply one that RESISTS biblical terminology used in association with baptism. Jesus associated salvation with baptism in Mark 16:16. Peter associated it in 1 Peter 3. One steppers will not make any such association. Not even after being HOUNDED to do so.



Just to close things properly with notofworks,

N.O.W. We will refrain from future discussion with one another on issues, but you cannot get away with fabricating things.

Originally Posted by notofworks

You've name-called me,

I never called you by any names, bro., neither did I call Pel by any names though he also accused me otherwise. Look and try to find some instances. On the contrary, you both stooped to name calling, and you even did it int he post where you rebuked me for doing it. lol . And I told you several times I was speaking of passive aggression in a tongue-in-cheek deal, but you obviously refuse to recall that, and bring it up again and again. lol. OKAY. TONGUE IN CHEEK. Hello?

So, see you later, and God's best for you! Really. Sorry for any bother I have been to you. And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from according to Peter, since he said baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Peter 3. In fact, I notice quite shockingly that so-called one-steppers, who refuse to realize repentance is a work, NEVER SAY BAPTISM SAVES at all, while Peter plainly said it did! And when I ask from what, none will answer! So the "one-stepper" position is simply one that RESISTS biblical terminology used in association with baptism. Jesus associated salvation with baptism in Mark 16:16. Peter associated it in 1 Peter 3. One steppers will not make any such association. Not even after being HOUNDED to do so.

••I Peter 3:21 has been discussed, explained, hashed and re-hashed...in this thread!!! And it was directed at you, I believe by Pel & Jeffrey, and I saw our responses. You either have selective memory, or........

Just to close things properly with notofworks,

N.O.W. We will refrain from future discussion with one another on issues, but you cannot get away with fabricating things.

••Another ridiculous accusation. You're loaded with them. And if you want to refrain, that's your business. I won't refrain, myself.

I never called you by any names, bro., neither did I call Pel by any names though he also accused me otherwise.

••Oh, so someone else said you name-called. Hmmm.....Where there's smoke, there's fire. Or, you know what the bible says, "Bro", "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established!

Look and try to find some instances. On the contrary, you both stooped to name calling, and you even did it int he post where you rebuked me for doing it. lol . And I told you several times I was speaking of passive aggression in a tongue-in-cheek deal, but you obviously refuse to recall that, and bring it up again and again. lol. OKAY. TONGUE IN CHEEK. Hello?

••Hello? Thanks, but I don't recall you ever saying that and I'd like to see where you did. You've never apologized for your baseless accusation, and you clearly should. To say publicly on the internet, in a forum setting, that another person "Has a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder" is an egregious offense. You should make it right rather than offering wimpy excuses and now claiming that you were just kidding. Nothing about it had any implications of joking. And I don't appreciate it.

So, see you later, and God's best for you! Really. Sorry for any bother I have been to you. And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

••ADD has nothing to do with an inability to "grasp things". As it's name says, it's an inability to pay attention to one thing for very long and I remarked as to the length of your posts and said, "My ADD couldn't survive your last post" and included smiles. I don't have ADD and if I do (and I've suspected I might) I've never been diagnosed with it.

I'll admit to being impatient, especially when I try to read pages of meaningless filibustering.

[pelathais]

I had dropped out for a bit on this thread - I'm always over extending myself in my online yammerings. Please forgive me if it takes a bit to get all of my comments "up to date" with the current state of the thread.

Mike has informed us of his dominant status thusly:

Originally Posted by mfblume

No one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from according to Peter, since he said baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Peter 3.

Such a parsing of salvation will probably always be met with consternation from the bulk of Christendom. It is only those that have been through the wringer known as the "When Is the Blood Applied?" debate who will be able to even have a chance at understanding Mike's lonely plaint.

As Christian believers, we are only "saved" from one thing: The wrath of God; that is, the rightful punishment for our sinful rebellion. Given the fact that we are only saved from a single amercement, it is cumbersome to think that we need different "acts" (or "works" or whatever) to clear the debt. A single act suffices and that act is the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Mike has correctly pointed out that the death of Jesus Christ meant nothing without His resurrection (actually I pointed that out to Mike and he has been quoting 1 Peter 3:21 with my emphasis ever since, but I am generous). And so, the "act" that saves is both the death AND the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

However Paul has us consider further "acts" as well. There was the "election of grace" from "the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). To this foreknowledge of Christ's Paul then adds "predestination" (Romans 8:29). To predestination is added our "calling" (Romans 8:30), justification and glorification.

So, which "act" on the part of Jesus Christ saves us? It is clearer to simply say that "Jesus saves us." That sums it all up nicely.

How do we participate in this salvation and make it "our own" salvation in particular? Well, here we can develop a similar progression of events, each with its own merit and purpose; however, it's simpler to say "The just shall live by faith."

Mike's alarming plea that "no one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from" is a poor rhetorical tool for such a good preacher of the Gospel, unless his conceptualization of the problem is so compartmentalized that he sincerely believes that water baptism is intended to save us from something other than what "calling on the name of the Lord" saves us from (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:12-13).

I suspect that Mike sees a need for salvation from just a single common peril; but what act "saves" us from that peril? Belief, repentance, water baptism, speaking in tongues, or our holy conduct?

It is much plainer to simply say, "Jesus saves us and we shall live by faith." There are certainly matters of conduct that will need to be addressed in due time, but if we don't get this part right, none of the rest will make any sense.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

In fact, I notice quite shockingly that so-called one-steppers, who refuse to realize repentance is a work, NEVER SAY BAPTISM SAVES at all, while Peter plainly said it did! And when I ask from what, none will answer! So the "one-stepper" position is simply one that RESISTS biblical terminology used in association with baptism. Jesus associated salvation with baptism in Mark 16:16. Peter associated it in 1 Peter 3. One steppers will not make any such association. Not even after being HOUNDED to do so.

I refuse to "realize" that repentance is a work. It is a verb, but it is not a "work" in any sense that the word "works" is used and applied in New Testament theology. "Shockingly," I was also the one who said to you, "Baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

You resist Biblical terminology with your adamant neo-logisms and you have completely and repeatedly mischaracterized your opponents in this debate.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Just to close things properly with notofworks,

N.O.W. We will refrain from future discussion with one another on issues, but you cannot get away with fabricating things.

It's probably none of my business, but that is certainly NOT the way to "close things properly" with a Brother.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never called you by any names, bro., neither did I call Pel by any names though he also accused me otherwise. Look and try to find some instances. On the contrary, you both stooped to name calling, and you even did it int he post where you rebuked me for doing it. lol . And I told you several times I was speaking of passive aggression in a tongue-in-cheek deal, but you obviously refuse to recall that, and bring it up again and again. lol. OKAY. TONGUE IN CHEEK. Hello?

Your muddled rant here is quite puzzling to me since the last exchange we had ended with you saying:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Oops, I mistakenly typed words about righteousness to you that I meant for notofworks.

Anyway, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by mfblume

So, see you later, and God's best for you! Really. Sorry for any bother I have been to you. And the inability to grasp things was only directed at your A.D.D. that YOU told me about. REGARDS! Doesn't mean you're dumb. Just too impatient.

Well, now that's better. I hope we can feel good about ourselves as we toil on together upon this mortal coil of woe, mutual sorrow and grief.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I refuse to "realize" that repentance is a work. It is a verb, but it is not a "work" in any sense that the word "works" is used and applied in New Testament theology. "Shockingly," I was also the one who said to you, "Baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

What does baptism save us from? I am not getting that answer.

And I agree that WORKS in "salvation by works" is not the sort of works repentance is, nor what baptism is, btw. How many times have I stated that it is works that render us righteous in and of themselves that are spoken against in the bible?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Such a parsing of salvation will probably always be met with consternation from the bulk of Christendom. It is only those that have been through the wringer known as the "When Is the Blood Applied?" debate who will be able to even have a chance at understanding Mike's lonely plaint.

The New Testament never uses the terms of "when the blood is applied". What is that? Such terms lead to ends that are offkey. Stick to the New Testament terminology.

As Christian believers, we are only "saved" from one thing: The wrath of God; that is, the rightful punishment for our sinful rebellion. Given the fact that we are only saved from a single amercement, it is cumbersome to think that we need different "acts" (or "works" or whatever) to clear the debt. A single act suffices and that act is the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Mike has correctly pointed out that the death of Jesus Christ meant nothing without His resurrection (actually I pointed that out to Mike and he has been quoting 1 Peter 3:21 with my emphasis ever since, but I am generous). And so, the "act" that saves is both the death AND the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For the record, while you continue to say YOU raised the issue of 1 Peter 3, since this is the second time you mentioned it, I have not read your words where you raised the issue. Not to say you didn't. And there are too many posts to find it. Anyway...

However Paul has us consider further "acts" as well. There was the "election of grace" from "the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). To this foreknowledge of Christ's Paul then adds "predestination" (Romans 8:29). To predestination is added our "calling" (Romans 8:30), justification and glorification.

So, which "act" on the part of Jesus Christ saves us? It is clearer to simply say that "Jesus saves us." That sums it all up nicely.

How do we participate in this salvation and make it "our own" salvation in particular? Well, here we can develop a similar progression of events, each with its own merit and purpose; however, it's simpler to say "The just shall live by faith."

Mike's alarming plea that "no one has been able to show me what baptism saves us from" is a poor rhetorical tool for such a good preacher of the Gospel,

Oh please. It is not rhetoric. I am asking a straightforward question and simply noted that I have not gotten a direct answer yet.

unless his conceptualization of the problem is so compartmentalized that he sincerely believes that water baptism is intended to save us from something other than what "calling on the name of the Lord" saves us from (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:12-13).

Not at all. While you distort my words, let me say that I never stated what baptism saves us from or what it does not save us from. I simply asked what DOES it save from. And I asked those who see baptism as not being a part of salvation.

I suspect that Mike sees a need for salvation from just a single common peril;

I never said. But while you repeat your idea that baptism saves from the only thing anyone needs salvation from, then how can anyone say baptism is not required for salvation, especially you?

but what act "saves" us from that peril? Belief, repentance, water baptism, speaking in tongues, or our holy conduct?

It is much plainer to simply say, "Jesus saves us and we shall live by faith." There are certainly matters of conduct that will need to be addressed in due time, but if we don't get this part right, none of the rest will make any sense.

Regardless, the Word says "baptism saves". And while you and others say you agree with Peter saying "baptism saves", yet you claim one does not need baptism to be saved. Whatever.

[mfblume]

N.O.W.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But at any rate, chats like this always get away from the issue and become personally oriented. Don't let that happen. It's not a competition thing. The issue if passive aggression was tongue in cheek to begin with, as well.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...&postcount=941

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

N.O.W.



http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...&postcount=941

Either I didn't read it, don't remember it, or breezed through it. Either way, it was probably 6 months after you said it originally.

And I would great disagree that your initial vicious attack on me with the "Passive-Aggressive" thing was anywhere NEAR "tongue-in-cheek."

Here it is from August 28, 2009:

"First of all, let's drop the passive aggression and let's talk decently. Accusing me of cherry picking what I like is wrong."

See anything TIC there? I don't.

Furthermore, the first time I brought it up a few weeks ago, you said you didn't remember it. How do you suddenly now remember that it was TIC? Interesting.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The New Testament never uses the terms of "when the blood is applied". What is that? Such terms lead to ends that are offkey. Stick to the New Testament terminology.

Silliness aside, the "When is the Blood Applied" question is the context of this entire discussion.

I agree about the "ends" you mention, but this is where we found ourselves from the time we first took up the mantle in our respective ministries; even before that time.

Originally Posted by mfblume

For the record, while you continue to say YOU raised the issue of 1 Peter 3, since this is the second time you mentioned it, I have not read your words where you raised the issue. Not to say you didn't. And there are too many posts to find it. Anyway...

So what is your point here?

My point was merely to attempt to show agreement.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Oh please. It is not rhetoric. I am asking a straightforward question and simply noted that I have not gotten a direct answer yet.

And yet it was answered, "at least two times by your count" (above).

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not at all. While you distort my words, let me say that I never stated what baptism saves us from or what it does not save us from. I simply asked what DOES it save from. And I asked those who see baptism as not being a part of salvation.

I guess your question was directed to those off this board then. People who would probably never even know that you had asked such a question. Sorry.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never said. But while you repeat your idea that baptism saves from the only thing anyone needs salvation from, then how can anyone say baptism is not required for salvation, especially you?

Indeed.

Or you, with your "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized" story.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Regardless, the Word says "baptism saves". And while you and others say you agree with Peter saying "baptism saves", yet you claim one does not need baptism to be saved. Whatever.

And you've repeatedly said the same thing. Whatever?

[TheLegalist]

and still... no answer. What also is amazing is the scripture clearly teaches when the blood is applied as blood and death are synonymous. Romans 6 says when we are united with him in his death.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?